"[W]here the implication from in-court testimony is that a non-testifying witness has made an out-of-court statement indicating a defendant's guilt offered to prove the defendant's guilt, the testimony is not admissible." Saintilus , 869 So. 2d at 1282 (quoting Schaffer v. State , 769 So. 2d 496, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ). If there is some real need "to show a logical sequence of events leading up to an arrest, the better practice is to allow the officer to state that he acted upon a ‘tip’ or ‘information received,’ without going into the details of the accusatory information."

As the State properly concedes, this testimony was inadmissible hearsay. See Cedillo v. State, 949 So.2d 339, 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ("`Where the implication from in-court testimony is that a non-testifying witness has made an out-of-court statement offered to prove the defendant's guilt, the testimony is not admissible.'" (quoting Schaffer v. State, 769 So.2d 496, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000))); Florence v. State, 905 So.2d 989, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ("[E]ven if the actual statement made by the non-testifying witness is not repeated, references to the statement are inadmissible if the `inescapable inference . . . is that a non-testifying witness has furnished the police with evidence of the defendant's guilt.'" (quoting Schaffer, 769 So.2d at 499)); Acosta v. State, 825 So.2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (officer's testimony that non-testifying eyewitnesses he interviewed confirmed victim's version of events was inadmissible hearsay).

Appellant relies upon a line of cases that have addressed the danger of introducing information supplied by a non-testifying witness that the defendant committed the crime. See, e.g., State v. Baird, 572 So.2d 904 (Fla. 1990); Schaffer v. State, 769 So.2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). This court examined the issue recently in Stokes v. State, 914 So.2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

See Fla. Stat. § 90.803(18)(a) (generally providing that a party's own statement offered against him is not hearsay); see also Freeman v. Att'y Gen., 536 F.3d 1225, 1233 (11th Cir. 2008) ("A lawyer cannot be deficient for failing to raise a meritless claim[.]" (citation omitted)). Evidence that Kryzda personally heard Petitioner's statements regarding the drug sale makes this case distinguishable from Schaffer v. State, 769 So.2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA) and the related line of Florida cases, where the defendant's conviction was based upon a police officer's inadmissible hearsay. Furthermore, Fleischman failed to object to Kryzda's testimony on Confrontation Clause grounds at trial.

"Where the implication from in-court testimony is that a non-testifying witness has made an out-of-court statement offered to prove the defendant's guilt, the testimony is not admissible." Schaffer v. State, 769 So. 2d 496, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). When the trial court has improperly admitted inadmissible evidence, an appellate court will nonetheless uphold the erroneous evidentiary ruling when the error is harmless.

The fact that the child's out-of-court statement did not incriminate the defendant distinguishes this case from the cases relied upon by the defendant. SeeMartin v. State , 85 So.3d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ; Tosta v. State , 786 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ; Schaffer v. State , 769 So.2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In each of those cases, the jury was exposed to the fact that an out-of-court statement was made and that the statement incriminated the defendant.

The State cannot avoid the application of the hearsay rule because the officer testified indirectly about what he learned from the woman and her ID. “[E]ven if the actual statement made by the non-testifying witness is not repeated, references to the statement are inadmissible if the ‘inescapable inference ... is that a non-testifying witness has furnished the police with evidence of the defendant's guilt.’ ” Florence v. State, 905 So.2d 989, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Schaffer v. State, 769 So.2d 496, 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)); accord Cedillo v. State, 949 So.2d 339, 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Torres v. State, 870 So.2d 149, 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Diaz v. State, 62 So.3d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). The statement of one person to another as to his identity is hearsay that does not fall under the section 90.801(2)(c) exclusion from hearsay for statements of “identification of a person made after perceiving the person.”

The State cannot avoid the application of the hearsay rule because the officer testified indirectly about what he learned from the woman and her ID. "[E]ven if the actual statement made by the non-testifying witness is not repeated, references to the statement are inadmissible if the 'inescapable inference . . . is that a non-testifying witness has furnished the police with evidence of the defendant's guilt.'" Florence v. State, 905 So. 2d 989, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Schaffer v. State, 769 So. 2d 496, 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)); accord Cedillo v. State, 949 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Torres v. State, 870 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Diaz v. State, 62 So. 3d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). The statement of one person to another as to his identity is hearsay that does not fall under the section 90.801(2)(c) exclusion from hearsay for statements of "identification of a person made after perceiving the person."

Such testimony constitutes error. See id.; see also Stokes v. State, 914 So.2d 514, 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (explaining that detective's testimony stating defendant became a suspect after detective conducted a number of interviews with other people constituted inadmissible hearsay); Schaffer v. State, 769 So.2d 496, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“Where the implication from in-court testimony is that a non-testifying witness has made an out-of-court statement offered to prove the defendant's guilt, the testimony is not admissible.”). Having concluded that the trial court erred, we next resolve whether the error was harmless.

This was clearly inadmissible hearsay. Schaffer v. State, 769 So.2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We disagree with the state's argument that when appellant's counsel merely said "objection" the lack of specificity waived the error, as it had been discussed at a sidebar conference.